The Papacy has decided to stick its nose into international business, informing us, among other things “…the [financial] crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale….” Let’s be kind and assume they weren’t referring to zillions of dollars in art hoarded by the church and continue on to the papal recommendation of a “global authority” and some kind of “Central World Bank” to undercut the “idolatry of the market” the Pope sees as so dangerous. Who controls that entity? Our good friends at the United Nations? The oh-so-successful bureaucrat in Brussels? The Vatican? The sharia department of Al Azhar? The eyes roll.
With all respect to the Holy See, time to restrict ourselves to matters of the spirit.
The Roman Catholic Church has always been hostile to capitalism, fundamentally because the Roman Catholic Church has a fundamental problem with the notions of individual liberty which capitalism requires and encourages. The Church was, and remains as far as anyone can tell, perfectly comfortable with absolute monarchy as long as the Roman Catholic Church is the state church. It only objects when some other church is established.
The the Church of Rome ran virtually the entire western world, the era was called “The Dark Ages”, and the “medieval Times” and poverty, disease and squalor were the conditions for 98% of the people.
When it lost it’s power, it was called the “Renaissance” and the “Age of Enlightenment”.
Both statist and the Church (with entirely similar world-views) can’t get past their mythology.
LOL! Great!
“The the Church of Rome ran virtually the entire western world, the era was called “The Dark Ages”, and the “medieval Times” and poverty, disease and squalor were the conditions for 98% of the people.”
Go read a history book, ignoramus.
What happened with that story I read not too long ago that suggested the “The Dark Ages” might not have actually happened? That some potentate somewhere simply changed the date to hopefully speed up the arrival of some event. Do I remember this wrong?
I’ve got over 50 on my shelf and I’ve read them all.
Try reading something other than popular apologist sycophantry, shill.
Sharpshooter,
The opinion you voiced evinces an uneducated view of the European past. The “Dark Ages” of which you speak is a term which, when used, specifically refers to the period between the fall of Rome in 436 AD to the rise of Charlemagne in 800 AD. The Middle Ages, hardly “dark”, are generally divided into the Carolingian, Romanesque and Gothic (Early, Middle and High) Ages, and that’s only in the West; we have yet to discuss the Byzantine Empire of the east (which was not under the sway of Rome).
In fact, the Renaissance which you tout, would not have been possible without the developments in the “Dark Ages” which you seem to sanctiminously revile.
Secondly, you cite that the Renaissance came into being when the church lost its power. Once again, you know not whereof your speak. The Renaissance, even more so than the Middle Ages, was the age of the warrior Popes like Julius II. Most of them came from the powerful ruling families of Italy and they brought to the papcy their families’ secular authority.
Better to be thought a fool . . . .
Good to see that there are some historically literate people out there.
I’d just like to add that the so-called “Renaissance” was in fact a period of decline for the Catholic countries.
During the late Middle Ages, Italy became the richest country in the World*, thanks to its central position in the Mediterranean, as well as the rise of capitalist city-states, mostly in Northern Italy.
Then came the circumnavigation of Africa and the discovery of America (making the Med peripheral), and the Italian wars (fought between France and Spain on Italian soil). The result was 3 centuries of Italian economic stagnation, while the Protestant Netherlands, and later Britain (and still later the USA) rose to become the World’s economic superpowers*.
Spain, Portugal, and France could have preserved Catholic economic supremacy, but they lost it because of bureaucratic centralization. Whether this centralization is to be blamed on Catholic doctrine, I don’t know, but I doubt that this was the only factor at play.
* see the historical statistics of Angus Maddison and his school.
” The “Dark Ages” of which you speak is a term which, when used, specifically refers to the period between the fall of Rome in 436 AD to the rise of Charlemagne in 800 AD.”
476 (crowning of Odoacer)?
hmi,
Thanks. I missed that.
No one’s claiming that the church vanished from the face of the earth at the start of the reaissance, or that it lost its power all at once, or even became less savage or violent than it had been. Nor does anyone (sane) claim that each period of history is not built upon those that preceeded it. You’ve successfully argued against a straw man of you own design. One HUGE change you gloss over is the church’s loss of philosophical and spiritual monopoly starting (to the extent that things like this have a discrete start) in 1517. The causes of the reformation, just as those of the renaissance and enlightenment, are innumerable, and all can be traced back to previous ages, dark or otherwise. History is almost infinitely complex, and cannot feasibly be fully understood. To pretend, though, that the loss of power (once again, spiritual and philosophical more than, or at least as much as, political) by the church had no role to play in the ensuing radical changes in the world it ruled is ludicrous. Maybe you should take your own advice, rather than opening *your* mouth and removing *my* doubts.
Aedigus,
Nope. I never made or implied the argument you accuse me of (“To pretend, though, that the loss of power. . . by the church had no role to play in the ensuing radical changes in the world it ruled is ludicrous). As to historical events having “s discrete start” as you put it of course this is true, and I never suggested otherwise. Sharpshooter drew an inverse parallel: Enlightment (his/her term) inverse to Church power. His posit was as simple as that and that was the only argument I refuted. As to taking my own advice, perhaps first you should learn to read more carefully.
T,
Implicit in your belief that you refuted his argument is at least one of three assumptions:
1. No decline in church power, in fact, existed prior to the eras in question. This is slightly supported by your “warrior pope” remark, but is provably false. As I stated already, the reformation saw the end of catholic monopoly and a decline, though not an extinction, of its power.
2. There is no causal link between the decline in church power and the cultural revolutions in the following centuries. While not concretely disprovable like #1, I find the notion to be incredibly dubious, and at any rate you just said that this isn’t your position.
3. You built a straw man (deliberately or not) by misinterpreting the assertion of a causal link between church decline and cultural change as an assertion that the church’s decline was the *sole* harbinger of the renaissance and age of enlightenment. Since no totally exclusive relations like this is history can actually exist, the straw man is instantly and trivially destructible.
Is there a fourth possibility I’ve neglected?
Incidentally, the enlightenment was a historical philosophical movement, which your latest comment suggests you don’t realize. I admit, the name is rather weasel-wordy.
Sharpshooter should change his name to crapshooter.
Aedigus,
I reply here because there was no reply link to your post (does this site only permit a single reply?).
The Reformation began in 1517 with Luther’s posting of the Theses on the door of Wittemberg cathedral. The Renaissance had begun 100 years earlier in the early 1400s (One of the early accepted dates for it is the development of linear perspective by the architect Brunelleschi around 1420). It was Sharpshooter’s claim that the Renaissance Enlightment (as s/he called it) was coincident with the loss of church power I’m demosntrating that the Renaissance existed long before church power began to wane with the Reformation(I’m also well aware of the Enlightment as a later movement; once again, I was responding to Sharpshooter’s terminology).
Furthermore, a discussion of the waning power of the church is more complex that just “it did” or “it didn’t” (as I’m sure you’d agree). The Reformation, occurring 100 years after the beginning of the Renaissance, was predominantly a Northern event. To this day, the North of Europe remains predominantly Protestant, while Bavaria and Austria remain predominantly catholic. One could argue that the Italian Renaissance could be seen as a consolidation of the Church’s power in Italy and Southern Germany; that it actually became more secularly powerful in these areas (for a time) while becoming less secularly powerful in the North.
The simplistic position that “Renaissance Enlightenment” (again, Sharpshooter’s term) was inversely related to church power was, once again Shaprshooter’s original position, not mine.
I would add that the Church’s various persecutions of heretics in this period is more a reaction to than a cause of the Renaissance and Reformation. Wealth being earned outside both nobility and the Church resulted in a more learned populace. IOW, that pesky capitalism caused much leveling of playing fields….
Um, actually, you have that entirely backwards. The Catholic Church protected civilazation during the so-called Dark Ages, by keeping art and literature (including secular literature like Aristotle, Plato, and other classical philosophers, etc.) stored away in monasteries while all of the major cities of Europe were being sacked by barbarian hordes. The Church also was the primary benefactor of Art, Literature & Science, actually fueling the Renaissance. The Church wanted to re-emphasize the classical philosophical underpinnings of Christianity. That was one of the main reasons for the the Protestant Revolution. The Protestants had a huge problem with the Church spending money on art and science, adopting the iconoclasm of the east and eschewing philosophy in favor of sola scriptura.
BTW, I am always amused whenever I see news reports about what “The Vatican” says. Drudge links to Reuters, who links to a a document from the Social Justice department. Benedict, i.e., “The Pope” never said any of things claimed in above piece. Oh, well…par for the course.
Wrong by far.Both economics and political liberalism were born in the Catholic Church.
The School of Salamanca is the origin of both.
Mariana in in his Treatise of Money was the first to explain that inflation is a monetary problem and one created by the goverment.
Even Saint Thomas with his fallacies about usury was smart enough to see that the market was to reign in some prices. Vittoria, who taught the Saint Thoma´s work beside establishing the thesis of the social compact and the humanity of native in the american continent , defended the notion of market price and freedom of contract . He also defended usury.
Luis de Molina explained why speculator made the economy work, 5 centuries before Fank Knight.
One and a half century latter, at the Sorbonne a church ruled institution, Turgot wrote his ” Reflections on the origin and distribution of wealth” . The book on wich Adam Smith´s Wealth is based. He lived in France before writting his book.Turgot in turn was working on the basis of the Abbe Condillac works.
Obama was just a “Community” Organizer; the Pope is a “World” Organizer and both have the same appreciation of how stuff gets made.
Not quite. It is a little more complex than that. Do not conflate that which has no common ground.
The fact that we wouldn’t be in this mess if we’d stayed on the gold standard flies right over his head.
Gee, is this the same chruch who in the “Dark Ages,” adjudicted, yes, people suffered physical deprevation by church Elders, against Usery?
We shall all just gloss over the Spanish Inquisition? And modern day Church pedophilia? And Latin American embracing of leaders whose main claim to fame is a leninist/marxist ideology?
The Papacy has lost touch with reality. Is in bed with nefarious world-wide criminals, glosses over real world complex politial-ideological problems facing the Church as an institution, deciding instead, to take a walk in a fabled rose garden to propose planting a “New World Order.”
One wonders if George Soros has successfully converted the Papacy to Soro’s theology.
“The Papacy has lost touch with reality”
i dont think the leadership of the catholic church has ever been in touch with reality other than consolidating its power and expanding its influence (i guess this is reality in a sense-at least to those who wish to force and coerce)
I watched the historically accurate, “History of the World” by Mel Brooks, and the Inquisition didn’t seem that bad. I think the reign of Torqemada is completely mischaracterized.
Hey Torquemada, whaddya say?
I just got back from the Auto da fe!
The Auto da fe, what’s the Auto da fe?
It’s what you not oughtta do but you do any way!
The Inquisition, what a show!
The Inquisition, way to go!
Everyone likes to single out the Spanish Inquisition as if it were somehow a particular curiosity of the Spanish culture. Not so. And, in light of the present occupant of the Vatican, I humbly suggest some research into its German analog and Konrad von Marburg.
Greed isn’t a matter for the spirit? I’m not Catholic but if the Vatican isn’t supposed to call out selfishness, who’s supposed to?
Who’s the greadiest? The ones who work and suceed or the ones who are envious (another deadly sin) of those who have more and want it taken away?
Greeiest that is. Typos galore.
The issue is not calling out the greed, fraud, malfeasance, etc. The issue is
the Pope is as big an ignoramus as the average Dope who doesn’t understand that
socialism, communism, fascism, COMMUNITARIANISM, etc, only amplify the greedy
tendencies of rent-seekers and other lazy bums who want to get rich without serving their fellow man. It amazes me that people as “learned” as the Pope are so stupid as to still be thinking in Dark Age terms of ruling classes and
aristocracies rather than Enlightenment ideas like individual liberty and
personal responsibility. The whole structure of the Roman Catholic Church is absurdly stuck in an obsolete mentality. I don’t trust it one bit because it
is like everything else I hate in the world; it’s all about CONTROLLING PEOPLE!!!
James, you may want to read the position of Cardinal Ratzinger on Liberation Theology.
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm
The linked article refers to some document released by “the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department,” whatever that is, not “the Papacy.”
It’s a common error in the press to refer to any little comment arising from within the walls of Vatican City as something “the Pope” said, or “the Vatican” (as if a city can talk and take positions on matters), or “the Roman Catholic Church”–when in truth such comments have no binding authority on the faithful.
Good point, J. W.
Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the Vatican to make really clear when something is serious policy or just the opinion of sue group. As you probably know, I am not reluctant to criticize the press, but in this case there isreason to be confused.
I agree. The present case is certainly more serious than, say, some article in the Vatican newspaper.
I’m going to retract my earlier comments. J.W. is right. You’re right too; they need to coordinate press releases a little more carefully.
Having said that, the Papacy never did have the kind of tight, top-down control over the Church functions that many imagine that it does. There always were loose cannons and always will be. In fact, one serious problem they have now is splinter groups that are outright mutinous.
Imagine that! Loose Canon’s.
Bravo! (And I will be stealing that one.)
Stop blaming the Vatican for not doing your job. You should point out the distinction. That’s your job as, um, a reporter. Considering how large the Catholic Church is, don’t you think it’s possible some loudmouth says something stupid without the Pope knowing about it? Does Obama control everything that comes out of Biden’s mouth? And stop lecturing the Vatican about what it can and can’t comment on. If you can spout ignorant crap on any topic so can everybody else. After all, you used to be one of those liberal idiotarians too.
So Roger — have you read the document? Or just a summary of what a journalist says is in the document?
The problem is that activist bishops may at will take it up and propagate, which would be extremely damaging. They would also call anyone pointing out non-infallibility, a dissenter. This stick is being freely applied already.
All the more reason to distinguish between what the press says is true and what is actually true.
There’s a reason why Jesus said “render unto Caesar”. His Holiness needs to remember that.
No, you ignoramus. That refers to state function distinct from church function WITHIN A COUNTRY. Is the Vatican interfering in the affairs of some state? Read one passage from the Bible and you think you’re an expert.
so…
how much is the vatican going to contribute to the planned european central bank?
cash only, no prayers accepted.
Is it possible that the papal experience in the Hitler Jugend had a more fundamental and lasting effect than we were led to believe before he was elevated?
Sounds like a particularly German form of socialism to me. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
Maybe you and Susan Sarandon should get a room? And thanks for demeaning the Holocaust by implying the Pope is/was a Nazi especially when he hasn’t said anything about this.
Oh, how about ‘cleaning thy own house’ first -
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/11/vatican-bank-mired-laundering-scandal/
I think this statement was not from the Pope, but from the left wing faction in the Vatican which understands as much about economics and capitalism as the church did when it banned usury. It is not a helpful proposal.
Ms. Feldman,
Thanks for the observation.
As someone who was raised as a traditionl Catholic, I long puzzled over the dichotmoy that the Church prospers under capitalism but preaches socialism. There always seems to be a great myopia; they heap praise upon the good Samaritan for tending to his enemy, but never once ask where the Samaritan got the money he spent to care for the injured Hebrew in the first place. Could it have been hard work, and NOT giving it all away?
The Catholic Church does not preach socialism, not as the world knows socialism anyway. Teaching socialism as doctrine is a heresy called Liberation Theology. The Church does, however, teach that the highest virtue is love. It is good that a man should work and enjoy the fruits of his labors, and it is good that a man should start a business and profit, provided that he does not do so by immoral means. However, we are also warned not to idolize money, for “One’s life does not consist of possessions.” In thanksgiving to God, we have a duty to care for the poor, sick, widows and orphans among us, first in our families, and then in the community.
Yes, I think people here, especially the snarkier ones, should bear in mind that “the Vatican” is a collection of human beings and as such is extremely fallible. Even Catholic doctrine (to which I don’t subscribe but with some of which I am familiar) does not make even the Pope, much less Church functionaries at lower levels, automatic experts at economics or anthropology or physics.
The Catholic church has horrible stains on its historical record…but they are the exception rather than the norm. Overall it has a much better record than the average civilization does, I would say…including America, for that matter. Hey, we did some really nasty stuff to the Native Americans, for instance. It’s not as bad as the lefties would have you believe…but it was certainly there and nothing to be proud of. Same for our treatment of black people and various other immigrant groups at various points in our history.
Anyway, the church makes an easy and conventient target…but there’s a lot of undeserved snark and vitriol aimed at it, too. YMMV.
Immobiliare
The Catholic Church, in its original form, is a repository for great truths (largely in the preservation of historical archives, and the universal values). That, however, does not empower its leader to speak infallibly on secular matters, so, yes… it should stick to the spiritual health of its followers.
As noted up above, there’s no reason to attribute this statement to the Pope, or even the Vatican, per se, as much as some dubious “Peace and Justice” department, whose authority is probably less than definitive. That said, this sort of thing has a powerful stink of stupid about it, both in substance and as public relations. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the usual ranks of Catholic-bashers and “new world order” paranoids aren’t going to have a field day.
True, it’s not like Simon and his ilk are going to bother making distinctions. That’s why I wish there was a better way of keeping the socialist bishops in line. And as for those pointing out the usual laundry list of the Church’s sins(child abuse, anti-semitism, etc.), keep in mind that if an institution was defined by them, it wouldn’t have lasted 2000 years. How many other institutions can one point to that lasted that long?
Actually, I’d like to amend my post. I can see why the Vatican may not want to keep the socialists in line. If I were Catholic, I wouldn’t want to be kept in line about my pro-death penalty stance. The Pope may disagree, but since it doesn’t fall under those infallible stances, maybe the Church wants us to engage in topics that are ‘still up for grabs’. You know, like a true liberal. In which case, Simon should celebrate the diversity of opinions within the Church, don’t you think?
Sophistry will get you nowhere. A circle has no beginning, and no end.
“If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” –Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (1931)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html
I’m not aware of such direct condemnation of support for the death penalty in any papal encyclicals, though I should note that I haven’t read many of them. Given my present knowledge, I think that your comparison is unfair to death penalty supporters.
This is the guy whose previous job was being what used to be known as the Grand Inquisitor, back in the day. Just sayin…
So you’re saying the Pope should go back to his old job and kick these socialists’ ass? Wouldn’t matter. The ‘Grand Inquisitor’ deals with doctrinal matters. Nice try, though.
Has the Justice and Peace Department read Revelation 13? If so, are they actively trying to bring it about?
As I have said elsewhere, there is a whiff of that.
My, this post brought out an entire clown car of bigots. Wieners, hosers,
losers and shallow thinkers on parade!
Guys, chill a bit. This is just the same thing that has been said by charitable millionaires and philanthropists for years, there comes a time when you should use your assets to help others. After all, you can’t take it with you.
In the words of Saint Dave Ramsey, “We live like nobody else, so later we can live like nobody else.”
I have not been able to find the article, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority” online.
But I did find a Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
The Third World is an extremely high priority for the Catholic Church. The institution may have decided that its future lies there.
Cardinal Peter Turkson, who coauthored the document in question and heads the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (which has a Kremlinesque ring to it, IMO), is from Ghana.
It’s not surprising that he issued a document which will be greeted with applause at the United Nations.
Here’s a link to the document:
http://www.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=531752
“Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of global public authority.”
Nein, danke.
I’m stunned at the amount of religious hatred spewing from this comment section. Sounds as stupid as Occupiers blaming the Jews.
That’s because many if not most Americans [including a LOT of people who ordinarily vote Republican] think the First Amendment guarantees freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion. They start frothing at the mouth the moment there’s a whiff of a religious connection to ANYTHING.
I love to point out that the most prolific mass murderers in the history of the planet were atheistic Communists but somehow that doesn’t make an impression on the freedom FROM religion crowd.
That this particular Pope has chosen to make a stupendously stupid suggestion does not necessitate your equally wrong-headed assertion that the Pope (and by extension, the Church) “restrict [himself] to matters of the spirit”. Apparently you are ignorant of the Apostle Paul’s wisdom concerning the subject: “…the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” [1 Timothy 6:10, NIV] How is that not a “matter of the spirit”?
{crickets}
A department in the Vatican (that I had never heard of before today) is not the Papacy. Just because Drudge runs the Pope’s photo with the half-assed report of the MFM wire services trying to support the OWS @ssholes doesn’t mean it is official policy or has the Pope’s endorsement.
That’s right, Jayemay, when the (handful) of Nonconformist Protestant ‘whore of Babylon’ nuts and the Evangelical Atheists get together they sound like the Left supporting Islam and going after the Evil Joooos.
Anti-Catholicism is the antisemitism of the (pseudo) intellectual.
“You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules.” – Father Guido Sarducci
It is very important to not depend on media accounts but to go to the source text. Media reports are very often flat out wrong. An official translation does not seem to have been released in english yet but here’s an unofficial full text translation from an appropriate site.
http://www.news.va/en/news/full-text-note-on-financial-reform-from-the-pontif
It’s 18 pages and does not seem to be as economically illiterate as the press is making it out to be. In fact, there are aspects of it that are quite good. React, even react negatively if it is called for, but let’s not beat up a press created straw man but rather engage the actual argument.
Will you please list the aspects that are “quite good”? I should be happy to engage them then.
Folks, there are various errors being discussed here.
1. Regarding the awakening of civilization and culture which occurred during the Middle Ages, and which began to backtrack in so many non-technological areas during the “Renaissance”: I think enough has already been said by other commenters. Suffice it to say that in the English-speaking world we have still not entirely recovered from the influence of “Whig History”; or, more exactly, “Anglican History.” (I’m not picking on any Anglican reader of this post, mind you; I’m just pointing out that the thriving pre-Henry VIII English Catholic civilization was pretty brutally overthrown, uprooted, and suppressed after the Act which made him head of the English church by law, and part of that was a heavily slanted history which made little mention of pilgrimages and priest-holes, but said all kinds of egregiously falsifiable things about how nasty everything had been in the years when England was Catholic.)
2. The Catholic Church does, of course, have a fair bit of priceless art and many cathedrals in valuable real estate. But her overall budget and liquid wealth are extremely small in proportion to the billion-plus souls in her ranks. Her “hoarded” art, when she is not painstakingly restoring it at her own expense, is on the walls for the rich and poor alike to see…whereas if she were to sell it and give the money to the poor, as some wags have sometimes admonished her for not doing (not knowing, apparently, that they were quoting Judas Iscariot), she would be able to feed them for about a day and a half, after which the poor would still be poor and the artistic patrimony of mankind would be mostly locked in private collections for the enjoyment of rather fewer folk.
3. We’re often in the habit of interpreting Papal comments as if they were intended for us (rather than for the entire world and perhaps focused on particular problems in Uganda, or Venezuela, or some other place). We therefore get the idea that a comment intended to rebuke a Latin American drug kingpin with his own private army and slave labor of peasants is directed at General Foods. We also tend to interpret those comments in a fashion which plays to our political expectations. This is an error; the pope is not a leftist or a libertarian or anything else: He is a shepherd of souls, who had the misfortune (I speak somewhat facetiously) to grow up an European. He therefore, as a shepherd of souls, is interested that persons, working singly or as a group, not be greedy; and that this be reflected in measurable action. As an European, his examples of what it might look like for non-greediness to be practiced by many people all at once are a bit myopic from an economic standpoint; but his own cultural vocabulary makes it inevitable. An American pope would still be making comments about faith and morals…but he would speak in an American vocabulary.
It appears the Church is not now limited to the idea that we “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Rather the Church now favors increasing Caesar’s sphere and his portion.
Nice poetic nuance, Roger. It rhymes, pope and dope. All due respect.
Apparently you got disgronified by some goombah Jesuit from Georgetown Univ., who managed to put a spin on the ball that filtered through to Drudge. Cf., for example, http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=21986
Looks like a case of the dog ate Drudge’s homework on this one.
See Nemerov’s column here on Tatler where he tears that apart.
Yeah, I looked it over. He is very convincing; I am convinced that he is very angry about something.
But as for demolishing that article, mezza mezza. It is not like you can demolish the fact that a lot of these bishops and theologians are full blast gas nozzles waiting for their 15 minutes.
Whoops.
All my careful analysis of the previous note, and I forgot to do one thing:
I forgot to see whether this “commentary from the Pope” was actually, y’know, from the pope.
It wasn’t.
To quote George Weigel:
In short: Nothing to see here, lefties. These are not the unexpected allies you were looking for. Sane people can go about their business. Move along.
Headline of The Day: Popmedia-a-Dope?
Roger Simon, Glenn Reynolds, Reuters, and Dan Mitchell beclown themselves in haste.
I am quite surprised at the intensity of the anti-Catholic vitriol in some of the comments above–though at the same time, I am also quite relieved that the report turns out to be false.
For those of you who snarkily suggest that Jesus’s saying regarding what is God’s, and what is Caesar’s means that the Pope shouldn’t speak on secular matters–maybe you should spend a little more time with the New Testament. Jesus was always telling people that they should give to the poor. Not that governments should give–but that individuals should. There are spiritual, as well as secular reasons for giving to the poor, and for not making an idol of money. Some of the world’s bankers are Roman Catholics, to whom it perfectly appropriate that the Pope address his marks.
As for the rest–of course the financial crisis has been partly due to greed and selfishness. I am appalled at how much right-wing thinking about the market is just a mirror image of the Left’s fantasies about Government. The left believes in the Government as some kind of fairy godmother who can do everything, and is always pure and right. There are people on the right who seem to think everything the business world does is just fine, as long as it makes a profit. It’s not so. There are greedy, ruthless, selfish, ambitious people in every walk of life. We damage the cause of free markets when we tolerate underhanded schemes and corruption because they make someone rich.
When businesses act unethically, or when they show no concern for the people they lay off, or the communities they work in, the argument for regulation becomes stronger. Which would you rather have–the Pope asking inviduals to voluntarily consider the moral implications of what they do, or the government issuing yet another set of punitive regulations.
So which do you really call for: the Church, or the Unions?
I think the Church does a far better job of getting people to consider their faults than a union does. I also utterly reject the idea that the church should keep it’s mouth shut except on Sundays, or that there is no real connection between morality and economic activity.
Yeah? We call it “guilt trips” and it works great for a church sitting on $$$billion of hoarded wealth to gather still more.
The left sure doesn’t have a monopoly on hypocrisy.
Care to back up that “false report” contention?
Right out of 1400′s era fiefdoms.
That puts you and yours just a single step ahead of the islamics.
R.C. you beat me to the punch. First off did the original poster actually follow up and look at the original post by the Vatican (nah, might as well take the word of the MSM). I’m guessing that if the leader of the Roman Catholic church actually wanted to post a decree it would 1) actually attribute it to the Pope rather than what appears to be a working group. 2) maybe publish it in some other language besides italian? Just a thought.
Wow, today I’ve been disappointed in Drudge, PJmedia & Instapundit in one fell swoop! Bad, bad day. I really expect better from conservatives/libertarians than to hop on the anti-Catholic bandwagon of the Leftist. And to all of the anti-Catholic commentors; learn your history, you’ve been used as tools.
Bravo to RC, T, jkl, et al.
Read this, dupe.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp
Then read the entirety of Will Durant’s works and maybe be less accepting of what yo WANT to believe over what IS.
(BTW, I was fed the RCC crapola for eight years, so I know where they come from)
To the Tatler, the vatican statement was bad, but you made a mistake because you did not quote the really bad parts. I dont mind the vatican ranting against greed, after all it is a sin. But when their statement called for worldwide regulatory authority to control us all to stop this greed, and condemned the free market, that is a different story. That is socialist totalitarianism, and something the vatican should oppose.